The perils of market research

I enjoyed this Corante post about the perils of market research. I've had a similar realization in my own design practice, and have turned more to in-the-field market research (e.g. onsite interviews & group discussions with target customers). I've seen the first-hand value in this approach in my own work - at least anecdotally, the data seems much more consistent with product reality.

1. Avoidance, not curiosity

So often, research is commissioned as an act of politics. For instance, a marketing director wanted me to research financial advisers in the London area. When I asked why, he revealed that... well really he wanted to test some consumer ads quickly, but he didn't have time to do consumer recruitment, so IFAs would have to do. (That in itself is a pretty questionable shortcut). Then it turned out that he wanted to test direct reponse ads - where it's nearly always simpler and cheaper to do a split run and see which ones work in the real world, rather than gather the questionable predictions of consumers.

... Scratch many research briefs and you'll find a conversation that needs to happen inside the business. An elephant under the table that's not being talked about. And when research is done to prove a point, as a substitute for a "fierce conversation", when there isn't genuine curiosity, I think it's likely to be a waste of time and trouble.

2. A fake conversation.

Boy did I become tired of focus groups. How weird that the nearest some marketing teams get to customers is to observe them from behind the safety of a one-way mirror in a focus group facility. And that's assuming they are observing, rather than knocking back the beers, checking their emails or continuing their internal politics while the conversation goes on next door.

As for quantitative research... the effort to squeeze people into those agree/disagree batteries has its uses, but it so easily traps us into trying to put numbers on things that defy measurement. And it's another way of keeping the customer at a distance in a one-way conversation loaded with the marketer's preconceptions.

3 Obsession with the explicit

The third problem is that market research fixates on what can be made explicit in a relationship. Yet there is so much evidence that way more happens in real human conversations than might appear from the words exchanged. For a crude example, just consider the difference between reading email and meeting someone over coffee.

...What this seems to miss is that all human relationships, however "scientifically" managed, are two-way streets....When we go out and actually talk with customers, cutting out the middleman, we expose ourselves to more than just an exchange of information. We allow ourselves to be changed, to be moved, perplexed, provoked, saddened, cheered and to experience a real connection.

UPDATE: An excellent related post about listening to customers - and listening in general.

we don't value listening very much in our culture.  What we value is talking.  We "want our point of view to be heard"; we "want to say what's on our mind"; we want to "influence others."  Rare to hear someone who stresses hearing others' points of view, listening to what's on your mind, or being influenced by what you have to say.

Why is that?

Well, I think it has a lot to do with power.  The power dynamics in relationships are very important to Americans and giving opinions by speaking, expressing, influencing, (selling) is the power position in conversations.  Traditionally, the masculine position.  Listening, receiving opinions, appreciating, modifying (buying) implies lesser power.  The feminine position.

We glorify talking.  Speech class for students.  How to win friends, and influence people.  Public speaking for executives.  Think of how funny the opposites of those sound.  "I've got to go to my Listening class."  "How to win friends and be influenced by other people."  "Public Listening."  (Full disclosure: you'll notice this is not called The TrueListen Blog.)

But, as is so often the case in our culture, it's the thing we think most simple that is really the most difficult.  Being an effective listener (hear how odd that sounds?) starts with becoming still, hearing the whole of what another is saying, making sure you understand what this person means. 

That's not what we're used to in conversations.  We're used to gearing up, not down; waiting for an opportunity to get a word in, so we can make a point; thinking about what we have to say next, so others "get" (buy) what we have to say.

And this is one reason why Cluetrain's deceptively simple, "markets are conversations" is so much more challenging for companies than it might appear.  Because, as Brad points out (thanks, Doc) a conversation is not something you can do to a customer, it's something you have to do with her. (emphasis mine)

So, you're no longer in control of "the brand message." 

No longer in control of "the brand's image." 

No longer in control of "the customer relationship."

No longer on top.